Pharyngula: Kent Hovind at St Cloud State University

Search this blog

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

(Complete listing)

The popular notion that witches were burned is quite false. In fact, no witches were burned at any time in Salem or anywhere else in America. Nor were witches by any means all women; in fact, they were not all even human beings. Two dogs were actually put to death in Salem for 'witchcraft.' The means of execution in all cases, including the unfortunate dogs, was by hanging, with one exception: an old man named Giles Corey. …Corey's death was by 'pressing'; heavy stones were placed upon his chest in an attempt to force him to plead [he protected his kin by refusing to plead either way]. …Nor was the witchcraft hysteria confined to Salem; Andover, Massachusetts, was caught up in it before the affair had run its course, and at least one witch was found in Maine. Salem was not, as a matter of fact, even the first to hang a witch. An old woman in Boston had confessed to witchcraft and been hanged in 1688, four years before the first execution in Salem.

[Tom Burnam, The Dictionary of Misinformation, 1975]

A Taste of Pharyngula

(Complete listing)

Spiral cleavage

Hemichordate evo-devo

Evolution of alcohol synthesis

Fluorescing dogfish

Transcription factors and morphogens

The proper reverence due those who have gone before

Pufferfish and ancestral genomes

Generic bumps and recycled genetic cascades

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Friday Random Ten: Bored silly in the Cities | Main | There's something wrong here »

Kent Hovind at St Cloud State University

Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 29, 2006 10:04 AM, by PZ Myers

After sitting through Hovind's talk, I have seen the light. I've always been awfully hard on Christianity and Christians here, despising their beliefs and making mock of their nonsensical ideas and backwards social agenda. But this evangelist really reached out and grabbed me.

I now feel a great pity for them.

Hovind is one of the leading lights of fundamentalist Christianity in this country; the large auditorium was packed full, and they had to put up folding seats on the stage behind him to handle the crowd. They were enthusiastic and laughing and cheering and shouting "Amen!" throughout his talk. All I could think through it all was sorrow and sympathy for all the Christians who have willingly afflicted themselves with this clown, who have gullibly swallowed his lies. I am so sorry, Christians. I'm very embarrassed for you.

On a purely objective level, evaluating the presentation and the skill of the speaker, I was surprised: it was an exceptionally bad talk. You will often hear these creationist speakers praised for their rhetorical ability, if not their grasp of science, but I'm afraid Hovind was awful. We have weekly student seminars at my university, and sometimes students do a less than stellar job at this public speaking business…but I have never heard a speaker as incompetent as Hovind.

Yes, he spits out words fast with little fumbling, and he lards his talk with well-practiced folksy jokes, but it's all so poorly organized and clumsily presented that it has no persuasive power at all. He is doing nothing but affirming the prejudices of his audience—he's effective at that—but he's not communicating any information at all effectively. I imagined him giving this talk to an informed audience, rather than the bussed-in church groups that were here, and his schtick would fall flat, and fall hard. Scientists have this expectation that they will learn something from a talk, you see, and that they'll be able to evaluate the process by which the conclusions were arrived at; there was nothing like that here.

Even if you are sympathetic to Hovind's claims, here is an indicator of what a poor speaker he is. This was scheduled to be a one hour talk. He showed up with a power point presentation containing over 700 slides. My personal rule of thumb for a good hour presentation is that if you're a bit lazy and fill it chock-a-block with bullet points and text slides, 30 or 40 is about right; better talks pare it down to 20 or fewer data-rich slides and spend some time discussing each one. 700+ is practically criminal; it's a declaration of rapid-fire superficiality, that you intend to steamroller the audience with no consideration for thought. Hovind is the anti-Tufte.

He also went over his allotted time—he talked for almost 2 hours. He knew it, too; at the hour mark, he mentioned that he was going to say just a few more things quickly, and then instead he went on and on, going all the way to the end of his list of power point slides. It was agonizingly bad. Again, though, his audience was predisposed to favor him, so nobody showed up with a hook.

What about his style? It was nothing but corn-pone jokes. He warmed up the audience beforehand with a continuous display of 'witticisms' projected on the big screen. Things like "Why is the third hand on a watch called a second hand?" and "Where does the light go when it goes out?" It was calculated, I'm sure, to rot the brains of the audience before the ringmaster came on. The audience actually laughed at these things. I was ready to leave, and he hadn't even started talking.

That was the tone in the talk, too. He'd rant a bit about the awful lies scientists pack into textbooks, and then he'd trot out some tired old joke. It was like watching Hee Haw—I half-expected Junior Samples to show up.

(Hovind seems completely incapable of changing his tone. In the beginning, he was introducing his family in this same jokey way, when he pointed to a picture of his son-in-law in one picture and mentioned that he'd died of cancer just a few weeks ago. One serious and sad mention, then zip, right back to the jokes. It was very jarring, and brought one word to my mind: psychopath.)

In addition to dropping a joke everytime his brain lost its train of thought, he was incessantly plugging his videos—they were on sale in the lobby. Money was a constant theme, which is also not something I've seen at science talks. Maybe we need to start. I didn't buy any of his videos, of course—this one lecture convinced me I don't need to hear any more Hovind, especially not a Hovind babbling on for several hours in each of a dozen tapes. I really don't know how Matt survived his experience with them.

As for the content of his talk: that wasn't the point. This was an mutual backslapping session for creationists, not an evening of substance. The talk itself was irony-rich garbage. His message was that science textbooks, yea, even the ones in use at SCSU, were full of lies, and he, lover of science that he was, only wanted to see those lies removed. In order to do this, he gave a talk that was full of lies. About 700 of them, actually.

In those 700 slides, he raced through an incredible number of creationist canards: polystrate trees disprove gradualism, non-existence of the geologic column, fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils, the Grand Canyon is young, microevolution, not macroevolution, humans don't have gill slits, mutations only destroy information, yadda yadda yadda. Seriously. They were all dead arguments presented at such a rapid clip that there was no time to think about them, let alone rebut them. And the lies were just so painfully blatant: as an example, he claimed that trilobites weren't old and they weren't extinct, and to 'prove' his claim, he showed a picture of an arctic isopod and announced that there it was, alive and crawling, proof that the biology professors have all been lying to you.

It was almost too much to take: Hovind was inciting the audience to tear pages out of biology books, to protest to the university about the lyin' professors there, and he was doing it by lying non-stop.

I didn't ask any questions. Once he shut up, I left; I don't think there would have been any point to trying to rebut him, any more than there is any point to trying to rebut Hee Haw.

Oh, and one more thing: St Cloud State should feel a little shamefaced. We had a creationist visit UMM, and he was politely but forcefully out-argued by our students, and even though at least one church group was brought in, they were totally outclassed by the students. This event was more heavily stacked with family and church attendees, but the SCSU students seemed to be heavily pro-creationist. That's not a good sign for a healthy university, unless they're cynically aiming to recruit from the poorly educated pool. It might make economic sense, in the short run, but it's very unfortunate to see my son's degree cheapened that way just as he's ready to graduate.

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

There is a reason for turning a one-hour talk into a two-hour talk. It cuts into Q&A time and he stands to be less embarassed by scientists asking critical questions.

Posted by: Miguelito | April 29, 2006 10:21 AM

So he went through a new slide about every 15 seconds? Was each slide one sentence long?

Posted by: wolfa | April 29, 2006 10:24 AM

There were lots of pictures -- redundant pictures. For instance, he flipped through a lot of aerial shots of the Grand Canyon. He showed picture after picture of embryos from biology texts after claiming that Haeckel faked it all, never pausing, which makes sense...if Haeckel faked it all, you don't want the viewers to dwell on all those contemporary photographs of embryos that show he was right.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 29, 2006 10:30 AM

I am so sorry, Christians. I'm very embarrassed for you.

Once again, you go implicitly assuming that all Christians are on a page with this nutbar.

I know there's no point in pointing this out, since I've tried it before, but you're way off base here. Yes, Hovind is a nutbar, and yes, creationists are nutbars, but many Christians would make no more claim to being philosophical partners to him than you would make a claim of being a philosophical partner to Jesse Ventura.

Posted by: Rob Knop | April 29, 2006 10:36 AM

So you aren't embarrassed by the fact that this professing Christian with a huge number of Christian followers is going around the country declaring what it means to be a Christian, and none of the Christians in attendance are speaking out against him?

Weird.

Personally, I'm rather embarrassed when Christopher Hitchens mentions that he's an atheist.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 29, 2006 10:57 AM

And I am sorry that you actually sat through that. I wouldn't have had the patience.

Posted by: Tara Mobley | April 29, 2006 11:00 AM

He warmed up the audience beforehand with a continuous display of 'witticisms' projected on the big screen. Things like "Why is the third hand on a watch called a second hand?" and "Where does the light go when it goes out?"

Steve Wright called. He wants his jokes back.

700 slides in two hours? I hope there weren't any epileptics in the house.

That's not a talk, it's an infomercial.

Posted by: Bruce | April 29, 2006 11:03 AM

Oh, it's like one of those animations I did when I was 10, on a flipbook. Except he doesn't know that computers do better animations than flipping through pictures really fast on powerpoint?

I missed a talk by Brian Alters (I think -- the Canadian who was part of the recent ID trial) here, and was very disappointed.

Posted by: wolfa | April 29, 2006 11:05 AM

It wasn't exactly flipbook style. Sometimes the transition from one slide to the next wasn't there, and he'd just babble out a joke.

Oh, and in a couple of places, there were jokes in the slide -- one sentence of the joke per slide.

Seriously, if ever I wanted to kill Edward Tufte, I'd get a copy of that talk and email it to him. It would be like sending "Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!...Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!" to a German.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 29, 2006 11:12 AM

#10

Fscking TypeKey! The "keep me logged in for two weeks" doesn't actually do anything, does it? I have to re-log in every time.

Anyways, I was trying to say that I was at a Larry Lessig talk once that used about 300 slides in approximately 20 minutes... and it worked really well. It was more like he was narrating a movie than talking with slides. He didn't stop or stutter once and the whole thing moved in one seamless lockstep synchronous beauty. Incredibly impressive; although not as suitable for a scientific/technical presentation. Though by the sounds of it, Hovind doesn't really go in for presenting the facts.

Posted by: Ithika | April 29, 2006 11:21 AM

#11

You are evaluating this speech as though it were a lecture.
It wasn't one. It was a sermon. A really, really bad sermon. And from your description, he was preaching to the choir.

Posted by: kayigo | April 29, 2006 11:26 AM

#12

I imagined him giving this talk to an informed audience, rather than the bussed-in church groups that were here, and his schtick would fall flat, and fall hard. Scientists have this expectation that they will learn something from a talk, you see, and that they'll be able to evaluate the process by which the conclusions were arrived at; there was nothing like that here.

Ahhh, but that shows that Hovind has understood the first rule of public speaking: Know Your Audience

He pitched his talk at exactly the level he wanted for his audience, and judging by their response, at exactly the level his audience wanted. It may have been an objectively awful talk, but it fulfilled the role he wanted - evangelisizing for creationism - perfectly. It was a sermon, not a seminar. Of course Hovind would flop if he talked to a group of scientists. That's beside the point. The chances of him ever talking to a group of scientists are about the same as me or you taking Holy Communion.

Posted by: Andy Groves | April 29, 2006 11:29 AM

#13

Well, considering that Hovind has a court date coming up for tax evasion, and another court date coming up regarding the shutdown of his park, I'd say he won't have nearly so much time to go around spreading his mental pollution.

Posted by: sdanielmorgan | April 29, 2006 11:35 AM

#14

Was there a moderator? Someone should have stopped him, and with a subtly scathing comment or two thrown in. "I'm sorry, but your hour is up. We now have to stop for Q&A from the audience. I am sorry that you're not finished, but we assumed that since you give so many lectures, you would know how to tailor your comments for the agreed-upon amount of time." [pulls plug on slide projector]

Posted by: Carlie | April 29, 2006 11:39 AM

#15

Yes, he's tailoring his talk for his audience -- and I think that is an incredibly demeaning attitude. He's going in poorly prepared with a hodge-podge of noise that he's fleshing out with bad jokes and bible verses. It works.

Call me a dreamer, but I think the way to counter this is for good, entertaining science speakers to give well-prepared, insightful talks that actually take some time to discuss the evidence and ideas. Let them learn what a good presentation is like. Raise the bar and leave the cheap-ass vaudevillians like Hovind behind.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 29, 2006 11:41 AM

#16

The 'moderator' was, I think, a lay god-botherer for the Christian fraternity on the SCSU campus. As long as Hovind coughed up a bible verse now and then, he wasn't going to stop things.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 29, 2006 11:43 AM

#17

Whoa! Close call! If I could read German better, I'd be dead now. And my dog smells terrible.

Speaking of dreadful jokes: I once sat all the way through a Duane Gish talk at a University of California campus. It was not so much a lecture as it was a stand-up routine. There were the sly asides that invited the true believers to laugh it up at the expense of those silly, silly evolutionists (they think they're smarter than God!), the anti-intellectual barbs for the consumption of jes' plain folks (why, some people are just educated till they have no sense left at all!), and the disjointed appeals to authority (scientists don't really know anything, except for the ones who formulated that second law of thermodynamics, which is sacrosanct [in our misinterpretation of it]). Any challenge during the Q&A session was turned aside with a quip, a recycled creationist talking point, and an oh-so-sad sympathetic shake of the head. Fortunately, when I saw Gish, Power Point hadn't been invented yet.

The next generation of "scientific" creationists will undoubtedly be spawned from the ranks of the sycophantic students who packed the lecture hall for Duane Gish at UC and for "Dr." Hovind at SCSU. The people at the Institute for Creation Research are cooking up a mentoring program to help such students earned advanced degrees at secular universities without blowing their cover as creationists. I cited the ICR announcement of its mentoring program in Undercover creationists for people who want details but aren't on the ICR mailing list (which, I confess, I am).

Posted by: Zeno | April 29, 2006 11:46 AM

#18

I wasn't there, but the words "Nuremburg rally" come to mind, as well as those 5-hour long lectures given in Red Square...I've given up trying to understand the mentality that embraces this shite. Obviously there's no real argument to refute, even, because creationists like Hovind don't advance anything that orderly--it sounds like one big game of pretend. It sounds like a bunch of people who deep down don't really have deep convictions getting together and trying lose themselves in groupthink, because they want to avoid the pain of each being an individual.

Posted by: Kristine | April 29, 2006 11:55 AM

#19

This sounds exactly like how it went down at Virginia Tech. Like other commenters have said, Hovind knows his audience and isn't aiming at scientists. He's just reinforcing the beliefs of creationists and hoping to snag some people who don't know much about the issue with his version of "shock and awe".

Posted by: Alpha | April 29, 2006 11:56 AM

#20

This was scheduled to be a one hour talk. He showed up with a power point presentation containing over 700 slides. My personal rule of thumb for a good hour presentation is that if you're a bit lazy and fill it chock-a-block with bullet points and text slides, 30 or 40 is about right; better talks pare it down to 20 or fewer data-rich slides and spend some time discussing each one. 700+ is practically criminal; it's a declaration of rapid-fire superficiality, that you intend to steamroller the audience with no consideration for thought.

Judging Hovind like you would judge an academic talk is almost cute, PZ. Too many slides, what a poor presenter!

What is really going on is an old-fashioned revival. Hovind's talks *always* go at least two hours, and it's not because he wants to avoid questions, because he always takes questions for another 1-2 hours, and is quite happy fencing with usually hapless critics. He will outlast them if nothing else. He's a flashback to the days of snake-oil salesmen.

Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | April 29, 2006 12:01 PM

#21

Why should SCSU feel shamefaced? If the student body is heavily creationist but otherwise qualified to be in school there, I don't see why SCSU is to blame. Rather, it's the Minnesota elementary and secondary school systems that should feel shame, since a biology course taken to fulfill a distribution requirement your last semester of college isn't going to do much to change ideas that persisted through twelve years of mandatory science classes.

Posted by: CL | April 29, 2006 12:27 PM

#22

So you aren't embarrassed by the fact that this professing Christian with a huge number of Christian followers is going around the country declaring what it means to be a Christian, and none of the Christians in attendance are speaking out against him? Weird.

Typical. So, if Rob Knop doesn't come right out and say he is embarassed by Hovind, you then implicitly trash his point?

Stop attacking the messenger and address the message.

Once again, you go implicitly assuming that all Christians are on a page with this nutbar. I know there's no point in pointing this out, since I've tried it before, but you're way off base here. Yes, Hovind is a nutbar, and yes, creationists are nutbars, but many Christians would make no more claim to being philosophical partners to him than you would make a claim of being a philosophical partner to Jesse Ventura

He's right, you know. There's no point in debating with you.

You actually might have something to offer, even to Christians, but your almost relentless condescension and patronizing tone suggests that you are only interested in appealing to your echo chamber sycophants and in patting yourself on the back while saying: "I really showed those creationists THIS time."

Once again, it is tragic to see such learning being poorly used.

Posted by: compass | April 29, 2006 12:39 PM

#23

If the student body is heavily creationist but otherwise qualified to be in school there, I don't see why SCSU is to blame. Rather, it's the Minnesota elementary and secondary school systems that should feel shame, since a biology course taken to fulfill a distribution requirement your last semester of college isn't going to do much to change ideas that persisted through twelve years of mandatory science classes.

Ummm, bad news. Even the most rigorous K-12 science program is not going to shape everyone to "see the truth in evolution." There is this troublesome concept in human nature called "free will" that keeps screwing up all those efforts at programmins people to act and think in certain ways.

Posted by: compass | April 29, 2006 12:50 PM

#24

Yes. All Christians should be ashamed that Kent Hovind is speaking for them. When you simply disavow him, you are using that as an excuse to do nothing.

You know that we atheist outsiders aren't going to persuade any of your fellow followers of your traditional tribal superstitions; they're going to tune us out as soon as they hear we don't believe a ghost made Mary preggers. So why aren't you and Rob unhappy with Hovind stealing your religion and using it to promote BS? This ought to be even more personal for you than me.

When you feel you are affiliated with a group, you should also feel more responsible for preserving the reputation of that group. There's a curious omission of that feeling by Christians, however, who seem to be rather tepid as a whole about the creationist phenomenon, or all too often, enthusiastically supportive. Please don't try to tell me that he's a fringe minority: I've been to a couple of creationist affairs in St Cloud and Minneapolis, and we're talking about packed houses there.

So get off your butt, compass, and oppose the usurpers.

Oh, wait...you're on their side. Never mind. You make my case for me.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 29, 2006 12:53 PM

#25

Dear Professor Myers,
SCSU is commonly known for bigotry among administration, professors and students. With no disrespect intended sir, I am surprised you would let your child attend a school with such a poor reputation.
BTW, I am a great admirer of yours and a U of MN Twin Cities Grad Student. Most sincerely, Janet

Posted by: Janet Cohen | April 29, 2006 1:28 PM

#26

There is this troublesome concept in human nature called "free will" that keeps screwing up all those efforts at programmins people to act and think in certain ways.

Who's talking about "programming?" Certainly, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. My point was, if one guy spends 12 years trying to convince the horse that drinking is a good idea, it's unfair to say that the next guy who comes along should be ashamed of himself for being unable to convince it to drink. I'm not sure where you're getting OMG EVERYONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO THINK THE SAME out of my comment.

Posted by: CL | April 29, 2006 1:34 PM

#27

I don't think I could have sit through that. 700 slides really is the sign of an amateur, at least from a PowerPoint and talk-facilitation aspect. This guy sounds like someone who's found a way to make money off his ego by attaching it to people's emotions...oh wait, that's the entire republican party.

Anyhow, compass, please spare us the tortured persecuted Chrsitian crap. The church has been railing against "heretics" for millenia. In fact they go to such lengths to do so, I'm more apt to defend non-christian scientists do meaningful work than Christians that bash them for doing it. Hovind is an embarrassment to critical thinking worldwide. His protestations and sales tricks won't change that.

Also, a creationist telling a scientist, especially a biologist, just how things really are is a bit like me telling a surgeon he's not operating on someone's heart properly. I simply wouldn't even consider making such an gesture, because it would be so gallingly stupid.

And I ask who does Mr. Hovind think came up with this nebulous idea to put "lies" into biology books? They never do answer that question, although that's usually when they decry liberals or some other attention steerer...

Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 29, 2006 1:47 PM

#28

I've never understood what Christians like compass mean by "free will", anyway, since apparently if you actually use it to think anything other than what you're told to believe, God sends you to hell for that. Viz. compass' use of the term as an apology for indoctrination, while terming learning to think and evaluate the evidence for oneself as "indoctrination" above.

Maybe God, through compass, means "free will" as in "free beer", not as in "free thought".

Back on topic, though, there are enough Christians in this country that if they wanted to stand up to what the minority is doing in the name of their religion, the fanatics would never get away with what they're doing. Except for a few, however, they don't.

I'm reminded of a slogan from the early days of AIDS activism, "Silence = Death". Most Christians in this country are standing by silently as the religious right does its damage, so if you don't like that fact, rather than attacking PZ as the messenger, you might want to mobilize your fellow Christians to reclaim your religion.

Posted by: RavenT | April 29, 2006 1:54 PM

#29

Well, PZ, I am embarrassed by Hovind. My brother gave me a 12 CD set of his to listen to about three years ago. Which I did (although I skimmed through much of it). I would hope that my first year geology students could refute the uninformed claims he makes about plate tectonics and the geologic column, etc. However, my brother has no science background since high school, which was for him, 20 years ago. Hovind's claims sound good to the uninformed because he packages his message in a slick, shiny wrapper. 700 slides--he knows not only his audience, but our culture. We are enticed by the visual in this culture, and he is playing to that. Plus he calls himself "Dr." even though his "doctorate" is in something like "Christian education" from a sort of mail-order college that doesn't have anything near an acredited degree program. Not only that, he claims to have taught science in high school, and he doesn't have anything past an undergrad degree in science, if he has that--I don't think he even has a science education degree, for that matter. Most people don't get past the "Dr." though, and assume he must know what he is talking about, even though his "doctorate" isn't in any branch of science. Since he is talking to people who don't have anything past an undergrad degree in science, if that, and since they WANT to believe what they are told the Bible says (although few of them take the time to sort it out for themselves), his uninformed rebuttals of science sound pretty darned good. Yes, he is preaching to the choir, he knows his audience, and he is a sheister to the Nth degree. And as a scientist who is also a Christian, I am embarrassed for my fellow Christians who can't ferret him out.

However, in their defense, they are ill-equipped to do so, and so is most American society. The average person has little understanding of science or how science works. Pop science sounds good. The average person assumes the person telling them about science has the authority to do so, and knows what they are talking about. Most people don't take the time to actually ferret out the truth of the matter (in science, or anything)

Hovind knows this and takes advantage of it. There is this overall attitude of "trust" of anyone who claims they are a Christian and uses the right Christian-speak. Couple that with his assumed authority because he has a "doctorate", and you have a master manipulator ready to fleece the flock.

To me, the biggest red flag he blatantly flies is his constant advertising of his material for sale, and why people can't see through that is beyond me. But then again, the entire American society is attracted to the bright shiny objects advertisers have to sell us. Why else do people prefer the big Hummers or fast cars to fuel efficient vehicles? Perhaps Christians are falling for this guy hook, line, and sinker, but it isn't a flaw only they hold in this society. It's a flaw most of us hold--the flaw of being attracted to celebrity, to the charismatic, to the fast talker, to the popular. Why else did the birth of Tom Cruise's baby make national headlines?

Posted by: squeaky | April 29, 2006 1:54 PM

#30

"...There is this troublesome concept in human nature called "free will" that keeps screwing up all those efforts at programmins people to act and think in certain ways."

You're confusing free will with the existence of evidence to support a given claim. Surely you and I and anyone else have the free will to not take facts seriously. It doesn't mean they cease being facts, and that those facts cease affecting reality and the human condition. But I guess I'm stating the obvious.

No one's programming anyone to think like anything. If anything, I was programmed at a young age to go to church and believe in a god. How is that any different from what you claim scientists are doing? Seriously. Answer that question.

That's why Christian fundamentalism is so corrosive: it rejects reality because certain things aren't written in a certain book. It's a lot like Islamic or Hindu fundmentalism in that way. All three are religions, and all three openly denounce science because it ruins their gig.

Meanwhile, I continnue to be a happy Christian accepting of (r)evolutionary ideas.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 29, 2006 1:57 PM

#31

Ken Avidor and I drove up to SCSU for the Bachmann Amendment Horror Show. We didn't draw such a crowd unfortunately. We saw the Hovind poster - it was pretty over the top. I've got it posted over on DB.

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/04/dump-bachmann-at-saint-cloud-state.html

Posted by: lloydletta | April 29, 2006 2:01 PM

#32

Go to Google video (http://video.google.com/) and search on 'hovind'

Streams to your desktop in all its inane glory: corny jokes, Hee Haw style.

Posted by: Bill | April 29, 2006 2:04 PM

#33

He will outlast them if nothing else.

Or cut their microphone.

He's a flashback to the days of snake-oil salesmen.

I hadn't realized they weren't still around.

Posted by: 386sx | April 29, 2006 3:07 PM

#34

This reminds me of an Amway/Quixtar adventure I once had. (Note-Never once did I think of joining) Friends (non- religious)who I thought were extremely intelligent invited me to an "investment meeting". Being suspicious I went to the hotel before the meeting to see what I could find out. I got the name of the organization renting the space and googled it but didn't find anything online, so I went to the meeting. It was a motivational meeting filled with well dressed idiots. That I sat through it was amazing, but it was like driving by an accident scene- I could not believe that this had happened. Anyway- it was lame jokes lame graphics talking points and lies all mixed up and served as real. The guy talking was a radio announcer (who is still on the radio three years later) who kept telling everyone there he was doing this for his future freedom. It was about two hours long - and was billed a a forty five minute speech. People shouted out, clapped mindlessly, and were basically idiots this whole meeting. Much of the meeting was spent hawking their "self-help" material. Not once was the word Amway mentioned- just Quixtar- kind of like creationists changing their name to ID. All that kept going through my mind was HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED TO MY FRIENDS??????

The point is, that people will believe pap for the masses if it is served with a veneer of "credentials" just because they are too lazy to find out for themselves what the truth is. I was not surprised to see religious people I personally knew there, because religion and MLM go hand in hand- the more credulous you are about one thing the more credulous you will be about the next, I think.

I am not very friendly with my former friends anymore- once I made it clear that I was NOT INTERESTED- I was struck off of their list of people to hang out with. This is not unlike religious people who realize that once you cannot be saved you are no longer someone they should spend time with. It is a very opportunistic and predatory world. People with limited amounts of exposure to critical thinking skills can be snookered by the most amazing idiots out there. People will believe passion over substance a lot of the time. NEVER underestimate the ability of some people to exploit these things.

Posted by: impatientpatient | April 29, 2006 3:16 PM

#35

Good points, impatientpatient. You echo my points above. An important thing to realize, though, is that it is not just Christians who fall for this--we all do to some degree or another, even those of us who think we are immune. A friend of mine pointed this out to me, and I, who pride myself in not being taken in by the trappings of this society (live simply so that others may simply live, sort of thing) boldly claimed I don't fall for the tactics of advertisers. Then I was honest with myself, and I remembered a recent e-mail I had received from Amazon.com telling me of books they knew I would be interested in from my past buying practices. Danged if I didn't buy a couple of them! We can call the people who fall for Hovind's crap ignorant fools, but we're all susceptible to snake oil salesmen and advertisement--it just depends on the salesman and what our vulnerabilities are. Capitalism runs quite well on these vulnerabilities. Nothing has changed since Barnums' "Sucker born every minute" statement. And we're all suckers at some point or another, but not all for the same reasons.

Posted by: squeaky | April 29, 2006 3:35 PM

#36

I would be interested to know if "Dr." Dino had his stats updated. According to someone that was at his seminar last weekend, some of them were, but he did not mention which ones.

Posted by: Corey S | April 29, 2006 4:39 PM

#37

Heh... you know, PZ, surviving my Hovind overdose wasn't ever really an issue. It's the unpleasant side-effects that bother me.

For starters, there's that pesky thousand yard stare that just won't seem to go away...

Posted by: IAMB | April 29, 2006 5:11 PM

#38

PZ, I saw Kent Hovind last year and I left with mostly the same impression you did. I wrote a big post to talk.origins about it; here it is:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb9a6713b20f443a

I just thought some of your readers might want a little bit of a different perspective on it.

Posted by: Cyde Weys | April 29, 2006 6:51 PM

#39

He's a flashback to the days of snake-oil salesmen.

Oh, the snake oil people are still around:

The website doesn't tell us that the eight are all supporters of intelligent design led by the ID Network's John Calvert and William Harris.
The FAQ distributed at the candidate forum is prominently reproduced on the Kansas Science 2005 site in PDF.

Here's one of the FAQs and the answer:

Q: Do the changes seek to criticize evolution to advance religion?
A: No. They seek to eliminate rather than advance a religious bias that permeated the old standards.

Presumably the religious bias they seek to eliminate is the religious bias that is biased against making changes that seek to criticize evolution to advance religion. So technically, if you stop to think about it, I guess they're not really lying about it too much.

Posted by: 386sx | April 29, 2006 8:00 PM

#40

Hovind may be an issue. If you want to lose sleep, look up the Now program broadcast 28 Apr about religion and politics in Ohio.

Theocracy is not that far away.

Posted by: John M Price | April 29, 2006 8:20 PM

#41

Bruce: "Steve Wright called. He wants his jokes back."

Reminds me of George Carlin, actually. Carlin coasted on such material for years, and he's still considered a comedy legend.

Either that, or Gallagher. Did Hovind smash any fruit during his presentation??

Posted by: Grumpy | April 29, 2006 8:51 PM

#42

And I ask who does Mr. Hovind think came up with this nebulous idea to put "lies" into biology books? They never do answer that question, although that's usually when they decry liberals or some other attention steerer...

That's one thing I've never quite understood. Suppose there really is some big atheist/scientist/liberal conspiracy undermining Christianity, the question is...why? What do the big evil atheists have to gain? Where are all the rich powerful scientists? Why would the "liberal media" "lie" about global warming? There's SO much more money in denying it.

Posted by: Rey Fox | April 29, 2006 9:14 PM

#43

I too have always been baffled by the reluctance of Christians to speak out openly against the fraudulent, self-serving snake-oil salesmanship of people like Hovind. Privately they condemn him, but publicly they are adverse to saying anything negative. It's kind of like if he's Christian, even a repulsive one, don't say anything if you can't say something nice. I'd much prefer that Christians would put on the car bumper the sticker that says "The Christian Right is Neither." Were I Christian I've have them on both ends of the car!

Posted by: Keanus | April 29, 2006 9:17 PM

#44

Who's reluctant to speak out against Hovind?

Three years ago I got an invitation to debate Hovind. Some lackey had thought I was a practicing scientist, and thought it would be the classic stuff. When they discovered I'm a teaching lawyer, and a Christian, they made all sorts of excuses to get out of the debate, including false changes of schedule. It was quite humorous.

In our church parking lot there have often been cars with the "Christian right is neither" bumper sticker. One of the reasons Hovind sticks to the backwater cities for the most part is that he cannot stand scrutiny of serious Christians, as well as not being able to withstand the scrutiny of science.

But remember what Twain wrote in one of the Tom Sawyer books: "Ain't we got every fool in town on our side, and ain't that a big enough majority in any town?" Hovind's existence works off of that philosophy.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | April 29, 2006 9:39 PM

#45

What color were his big flooy shoes and foam nose?

Posted by: BigDumbChimp | April 29, 2006 10:10 PM

#46

grr floppy

Posted by: BigDumbChimp | April 29, 2006 10:11 PM

#47

PZ
Andy Groves is correct about audiences. His "first rule of public speaking: Know Your Audience," is the first rule in all public communications, such as mass media, political campaign speeches, advertising, etc. Did Hovind's audience feel demeaned? You wouldn't go before that crowd and give the talk you gave to an annual scientific conference. Do that and the audience tunes out and hears nothing. "Communicators" who ignore audience needs are egotistical failures.

As a teacher you tailor material to audience constantly. But in college students you have a self-motivated audience, there to work, more or less. With an audience allergic to thinking, or distracted by other priorities, etc., it's a different equation if audience effect, rather than self-satisfaction, is the goal. You like entertaining science speakers but Pharyngula's tastes would be a foreign language to most in that hall.

SBers often rif on how people SHOULD process information, the arguments and persuasion that SHOULD work on them. Demeaning the public when it's unpersuaded and uninformed by such "shoulds" actually is self-demeaning, revealing an analysis highly anectodal, ignorant, and unscientific. Attitude formation and change, emotional bias filters in communication, etc. is rarely discussed beyond Cognitive Daily. Let me turn to a celebrity as my analogy, Homer Simpson, scientist. "Lousy, stupid experiment turned out wrong. Marge! Come in here and explain to this experiment what it's supposed to do. [whispered aside to experiment] And if you know what's good for you, you little... "

Squeaky makes the reality in the good ol' U.S. of A. clear. Twice. One quibble which is there has been change since Barnum's day -- the hucksters are getting much more sophisticated and now use science. See Seed "News Items" column straight below, "Study Finds a Mechanism for Decision-Making" for one of many examples.

"Why else did the birth of Tom Cruise's baby make national headlines?" I'll also add that the meta-manipulation going on escapes even the most observant. Our current "celebrity culture" phenomenon is not a natural one, but rather one carefully constructed over many decades.

As has been the rise of the right. High stakes politics is almost such these days. On a Chris Mooney topic I discussed the sophisticated psychomarketing technique Dub and Vee-Dub used, proximity soundbites to sell Americans on invading Iraq. As snakeoily as it gets. Or snakeyoily.

And impatientpatient always has insights [for me, at least] about how the minds in that audience work.Perhaps impatientpatient will check me on the following.

Rey Fox, not money, but with irrefutable "logic", power. Scientists, who may soon be demonized as dishonest, anti-Christian, and anti-American, gain the obvious, as dupes, for Satan. Spreading nationwide to ID footsoldiers, it may get quite personal and may tar scientists, academics, teachers, etc., in general, if useful for a broader sociopolitical agenda. The right lies about science at will and feeds their audience shovelfuls of false witness. Why would they stop?

compass. PZ's doing his job, which he does very well -- being a provocateur. You're roughly right but, like "echo chamber sycophants" are a bit over the top. Staying "in subject", you're at PZ's Revival Meeting, with appropriate content and emotions. It can get condescending and patronizing as those crowded into the tent would probably agree. There's even speaking in tongues -- or is that Latin?

Posted by: SkookumPlanet | April 29, 2006 10:42 PM

#48

I wonder why he always uses the same, 30-year-old photo on his posters. It's just kind of weird. It's not like the audience isn't going to be immediately able to tell that he isn't 25 when they look at him. Is it vanity or just extreme laziness. Either way, I find it quite disturbing.

Posted by: jakobpunkt | April 29, 2006 11:03 PM

#49

Please don't try to tell me that he's a fringe minority: I've been to a couple of creationist affairs in St Cloud and Minneapolis, and we're talking about packed houses there. So get off your butt, compass, and oppose the usurpers.

There are plenty of nutball Protestant ministers selling spiritual whipped cream instead of proper meat. They aren't worth the energy. Neither is Hovind. At least he is intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a possibility of a God. Agnostics posing as atheists that haven't worked out the logic correctly (such as yourself) are more of a concern in a world that is convinced that the third act of the mind alone suffices for divining truth.

Though heaven knows tilting at the Pharyngula/PZ windmill is a lonely, damned near fruitless endeavor in this sycophant-infested echo chamber.

So sadly wrong it almost isn't worth the response, but I'll try.

God doesn't send people to hell, Raven. They choose to go all on their lonesome.

Posted by: compass | April 29, 2006 11:58 PM

#50

Alright, compass, I'll bite: how does one "choose" to go to a place one does not believe in?

Posted by: minimalist | April 30, 2006 12:22 AM

#51

"Though heaven knows tilting at the Pharyngula/PZ windmill is a lonely, damned near fruitless endeavor in this sycophant-infested echo chamber."

My goodness, Compass, what a martyr complex! Climb down off that cross; we need the wood!

You assume a "tone" of exasperated moral superiority, question the integrity of PZ and nearly all the posters, and then act wounded when people get annoyed and jab back at you.

Tell me, why do you bother with us heathens? We're really not worth all this time and effort, are we? Gosh, we sure are lucky to have you to kick around...

Posted by: Harrison | April 30, 2006 12:37 AM

#52

compass, you are making far too many assumptions to even begin to consider yourself humble. This btw is another symptom that is common of the false "persecuted Christian". In one breath you decry someone's views because they are not humble to a particular possibility you hold dear. But by the same token you're being just as "arrogant" as the person you are decrying. In the end you're not so much refuting a person's argument, as stating that you merely do not subscribe to that viewpoint.

Who says that not believing in a god automatically means someone believes humans to be gods? This is one of the most assanine assumptions hard-right Christians make of atheists/non-religious people. It's a premise reached via means that are so false, and it's another example of reactionism inherent in conservative psychology. If A != B like it should be according to X edict in book Y, then C must be the cause or the real truth. I'm sorry, but any way you cut it, that's bad math. It allows you to make assumptions in light of an absence of fact, and does not place upon you the burden of having to research what the real facts might be. It really is just another form of the god-of-the-gaps argument is used to attempt to disprove evolution.

And really, what's a more humble way to go about discovering life? Searching for facts and testing them against hypotheses? Or making assumptions and running with it because the water on the stove is boiling?

Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 30, 2006 1:02 AM

#53

Though heaven knows tilting at the Pharyngula/PZ windmill is a lonely, damned near fruitless endeavor in this sycophant-infested echo chamber.

Yup. Coming here every day and insulting the liberals must take a lot out of poor Compass.

Funny thing, tho, no one's paying him or forcing him, and he sure seems to enjoy it.

Posted by: George Cauldron | April 30, 2006 1:35 AM

#54

The thing that I keep thinking about is that science is not a common language, but religion is. Does that make sense? Even if you have no real experience with religion you know about Christmas and Easter and Jesus and Heaven and Hell and all of the other motifs like salvation and redemption----- these are built into our culture without us even being aware of it. ( If you need some help envisioning how ubiquitous it is in our culture, try taking a University English course without having a religious understanding.) Kind of like product placements in television shows. They are vaguely nice, comforting and non-threatening for the majority. You go to church for weddings (happpy) baptisms (happy) and funerals (not so happy, but now seen as a celebration of life). It is a way to mark the inevitable seasons of our lives.

Science and technology are taken for granted, and yet, also feared. Technologyand science are not value neutral for many people, and the pace of change is dizzying. Those who are in the "feel good" business exploit that unsettling reality by spinning it and hearkening back to simpler times. Because science and technology are by nature so TECHNOLOGICAL and difficult for most to understand or judge the merits of, it is met with suspicion. ( Here is a link I found on Jesus and Technology: http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Technology/index.html#technology )

The language of religion to an outsider is as confusing as the language of science to one without a firm grounding in science. And science is much harder to put into "talking points" - simplistic talking points anyways. Science is constantly evolving. Religion, even though it has most definitely changed in form and function, still at its core is resistant to anything but incremental reforms. These two worlds cannot co-exist without clashes. It is inevitable. The changes that science brings affect everything- the computer for example has changed forever how we communicate. It is instantaneous, it is seen as superficial, you do not need to be in physical proximity to communicate nor do you have to even use your hearing which at least gives a clue to the emotionality of the conversation. While it has been embraced by the religious folks, its use still is discussed in theological terms. It is a tool to reach out and save others and to transmit important information with rapidity. The pitfalls are to be avoided- online gambling and pornography, and the benefits are NOW seen as outweighing the harm. There are still clusters of Christians who decry this use on the basis of some passages in Revelations or other interpretations of Scripture that can be seen to frown upon embracing the ways of the world.

What implications does this have for those who are scientifically and not theologically based. First of all, know your potential audience. If you are trying to talk to people who do not believe in evolution, know what they do believe and check your arrogance at the door at the beginning. The old adage that you catch more flies with honey is true. When you talk, talk as simply as you can. The average scientist may know what you are talking about when you speak about pro-inflammatory cytokines and interleukin 2 and the difference between cellular and humoral immunity ( I only use this example and not evolution because I know about it and not much else!) , but most people are completely unfamiliar with scientific-ese. (For those of you unfamiliar with religion, try to imagine trying to figure out the Apostle's Creed and what it means and how it was put together and how that fits in with now). People want to know mostly about how something is going to affect them personally. If it isn't going to affect them immediately or in some horrific way the are not very interested. Think advertising- the more hideous the zit, the better the response from teenagers everywhere when it comes to buying Clearasil. Evolution doesn't really have any "now" factor to most people. It is ancient history or a lie. What are the benefits of knowing about evolution- what tangible difference will it make in a Creationists life to believe in Evolution? Well, cancer and bird flu come to mind. Diseases evolve, our immune systems have evolved, and that is a real and tangible way to viscerally grab attention. Science needs to marry different fields together to present how a paleontologist, a microbiologist, a chemist and a doctor can be interconnected and relevant. And they need to do it soon if there is any hope of turning the tide in North America. Scientists need to court the media like the religious people do. Unfortunately I think this is considered a form of grandstanding and bad form these days. I am amazed when I read about Pasteur and Einstein and realize that the media of their day followed them with almost as much zeal as the paparazzi follows Britney Spears today.

And that is my never to be humble opinion about why religion is better at getting its message out. It is simple, it is immediately gratifying, when you come in to the fold there is an instant sense of belonging and you don't have to worry about consequences- both your immediate and long term needs are satisfied. Even if you are only a peripheral believer it is a panacea in times of need.

Science on the other hand MAKES people think and there is no clear cut way to use what you know to help in an immediate way, nor is there any guarantee for the future. It is not cohesive and it is quite frankly a bit unsettling.

Way too much talking and probaly I am still missing something.

Posted by: impatientpatient | April 30, 2006 1:43 AM

#55

You may feel sorry for them, but. .....

Lets remember, most christiuans are blackmail victims.
Christianity, like islam, and all other religions is blackmail - blackmail of a "better life" & fear of punishment from the religious, if they have political or social power.

Yesterday, I was stopped by a christian as I was walkin home, and it was a female.
So I pointed out that women have no place pushing anythiug in christianity.
Even though it's all in the bible, I just got the mindless "god loves you/god bless you/ jesus will save you" mantra, until I had to walk away before I knocked her down.

Why do they do it?
They don't even follow their own teachings.
There's anothe really fundie church here, and I've just seen women wearing RED going to church .....

As for the previous poster, who said "all christians arn't like Hovind" - well, what are you going to DO about it then?
Put up, or shut up, and be classified with Hovind.
Caliming "Oh he/they are not PROPER christians/muslims/communists" really will not wash, unless you take some steps.
Otherwise, you are automatically going to be classed along with those already known to be brain-dead.

Posted by: G. Tingey | April 30, 2006 4:57 AM

#56

You know.. One of the favorite sayings of nearly everyone is:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I would like to make an addendum to that, "When most good men do nothing, it doesn't matter if only some appose evil." This is the logic gap the appologists posting on here don't $%$@%#@ seem to get.

Posted by: Kagehi

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Kent Hovind at St Cloud State University

TrackBacks

Comments